I think a complaint would go through the Wisconsin Judicial Commission. Discipline for a Supreme Court justice is tricky though. Apparently this happened not too long ago? wisconsinexaminer.com/2023/02/15/t...

In fairness, we have an express prohibition on AI as a research tool for exams (and no court, as far as I know, has such a rule). But fabricating a direct quote in a court filing is a big no-no, regardless of how it came about. And it seems likely here that it was due to AI.

Yeah, the cite is weird too. Is Vol. 600 of the U.S. reports out yet? And if it’s to the slip opinion, there is no page 34.

Right. It’s not impossible that the message here is: “even these liberal judges recognize that we are not prejudiced.”

More than fair. Any wager on how it shakes out?

Though the special attorney appointment didn’t help Habba. It did help Essayli (those district courts reached different conclusions on delegation). More to come in those cases. I do think the delegation argument is the strongest one the government has.

Oh, and didn't realize @serenamayeri.bsky.social is on here! Go follow her!

Respectfully disagree. I think you're 100% right that it's important that this is happening in the former Capital of the Confederacy. And sure, a minority of folks at UVA would happily re-segregate the institution. But they're losing and this is the death throes of last century's Virginia.

I think about this at least once a week: optional.is/required/202...

Not a beginner question at all! That's certainly the normal practice. The question here is: "what happens if they DON'T do that?" And because prosecutors almost always do what you said, there's not much law on the legal consequences of them failing to do so!

Right. Or any kind of affidavit/declaration from those who made representations yesterday.

That's what I was getting at. That's what I THINK is going on here.

The foreperson's account was (a) convoluted, but (b) expressly stated that 12+ had voted on the two-count indictment. The gov't yesterday put on record that the GJ voted on substance, but had NOT actually voted on the two-count indictment. Now, it seems, gov't is walking back that representation.

Saying "the transcript establishes [x]" means the judge/court should accept [x] as true (whether or not [x] is true). But that's slightly different than saying "[x] is true." I think maybe the government is being coy with how they're wording this (perhaps bc they know [x] isn't true).

I think that's the sensible read of the filing. But, on my read, they aren't QUITE "claiming the grand jury *did* vote on it". . . . They're saying that the transcript / official record establish that they did vote on it. There's an (important) shred of daylight between the two, maybe?